Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87478 Case Number: AD8760 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - NBU |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/17809 concerning compensation for non-implementation of five day week between 1st March, 1987 and 17th May, 1987.
Recommendation:
9. The Court sees some merit in the claim and in the Rights
Commissioners recommendation, however, an undesirable precedent
would be created in CIE if compensation were to be given to one
union because of delays caused by the necessity to reaching
agreement with other unions.
The Court therefore decides that the Company's appeal be upheld.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87478 THE LABOUR COURT AD60/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 60 OF 1987
Parties: BUS ATHA CLIATH
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CM/17809 concerning compensation for
non-implementation of five day week between 1st March, 1987 and
17th May, 1987.
Background:
2. As part of the introduction of One Person Operations (OPO),
the Labour Court recommended that a five day week be introduced
(Labour Court Recommendation No. 9901 of 23rd August, 1985 and
subsequent Labour Court terms of 9th January, 1986, refer).
3. In order to prepare proposals a Joint Negotiating Committee
was set up and final proposals were formulated on 23rd January,
1987. The proposed system was accepted by one union on 30th
January, 1987 and the Union requested the Company to implement the
system. However, the other unions involved rejected the
proposals, mainly on the issue of a guaranteed 'early Sunday'
which was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on 27th March,
1987 (LCR No. 11126 of 15th April, 1987 refers). Following this
the proposals for a five day week were accepted by all unions
involved and the five day week was implemented on 17th May, 1987.
This involved a change from a 5.4 day week with twenty seven
working days in each five week cycle to a system of twenty five
working days in each five week cycle.
4. On 26th February, 1987 the Union which had accepted final
proposals on implementation of the five day week in January, 1987
submitted a claim on behalf of approximately 1,500 workers for
application of benefits of the five day week, i.e. two days pay
for each five week cycle worked for the period March 1st 1987 to
17th May, 1987. The Company rejected this claim on the basis that
without the consent of all the unions implementation of the five
day week could not take place.
5. The Union then referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 25th May, 1987 and issued the
following recommendation:-
"It seems to me that either on 1st October, 1986 or
later, as mutually agreed, both parties were obliged to
implement the 5-day week. No mutual agreement was in
effect after 1st March so the party which was then
unable to deliver on its side of the bargain would have
failed in the performance of the agreement; some
satisfaction, if demanded, would have to be given for
that failure.
Bus Atha Cliath, admittedly not by any default on its
part, could not deliver but there was no failure on the
part of the NBU. Consequently the Company should give
satisfaction so the remedy must be to concede the
Union's claim."
6. The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 9th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The Labour Court recommended that the five day week
should come into effect from 1st October, 1986 but that
this could be postponed by mutual agreement. When
negotiations were completed, there was no mutual
agreement for a further postponement after 1st March,
1987.
(ii) Implementing the five day week was costed by the
Company at #1.3m or #100,000 for every four week
period, the cost of which is paid for by the
implementation of OPO. The Union accepted that the
five day week could not be implemented pending
acceptance of the proposals by all the Unions involved.
However, the workers who accepted the proposals in
January, 1987 should not have been at a loss and should
have been paid in accordance with the scheme, and
received payment for the period of non-implementation.
(iii) The Company agreed to pursue the matter through a third
party if the Union wished. This the Union did and the
Rights Commissioner gave careful consideration to all
points in making his recommendation. The claim is real
and justified and the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should be upheld.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) At all times during negotiations on implementation of
the five day week the Company was in favour of early
implementation. In October, 1986 the Company suggested
an implementation date of 2nd November, 1986 but this
date was rejected both by this Union and the Group of
Unions.
(b) The Company could not implement the five day week
without agreement from all unions involved. The Labour
Court in its recommendations (LCR No. 9901 and terms of
January, 1986) was obviously of the opinion that all
Unions would be working in unison on the issue. The
Company did not envisage that any union would negotiate
seperately on the issues as this would put the Company
in a difficult position. The Company met all its
commitments in relation to the five day week and
therefore cannot pay compensation for its
non-implementation on 1st March, 1987.
(c) The targets on progress on OPO have not been achieved
and there has also therefore been a slippage in budget
targets. The workers concerned are only one section of
the workforce involved in the five day week.
Concession of the claim would have serious implications
in future issues where there was no agreement amongst
the unions and would probably result in a consequential
claim by the Group of Unions on behalf of 1,400
workers.
DECISION:
9. The Court sees some merit in the claim and in the Rights
Commissioners recommendation, however, an undesirable precedent
would be created in CIE if compensation were to be given to one
union because of delays caused by the necessity to reaching
agreement with other unions.
The Court therefore decides that the Company's appeal be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
23rd July, 1987 --------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman